With all of the recent noise surrounding the “Birther” movement, I pitched a conspiracy theory roundup to my editors at Asylum. As I was researching the article, I came across this hilarous Chuck Norris Fact: The Birthers endorse Chuck for President.

Why Chuck Norris? Do you need to ask?

Actually, I would have said, “Chuck Norris for President? WTF?” I digress.

Our country needs leadership and Chuck is the one to give it to us! He has a strong moral and professional background and is a leader in everything he does. He will uphold the Constitution and protect all of our rights!

While you are at it, check out The Birthers, Dedicated to the rebirth of our Constitutional Republic.

The strange thing, though, is that the Birther-run Chuck Norris 2012 doesn’t feature any proof at all that Norris is a natural-born US citizen. What gives? What’s the difference between Chuck Norris and Barack Obama? No, it couldn’t be that Norris is white and Obama isn’t. Why is that the first thing you people always think of?

No, there’s no other conclusion to be drawn. The entire “Birther” movement was created as a smokescreen to cover up Norris” own Kenyan birth. Chuckers, unite! Demand proof that this isn’t true!

I know we’ve already had Michael Jackson stories from Christina and Alex, and my own modest effort, but as my able colleagues pointed out, this is the model of restraint when compared to other media outlets. Like CNN.

Even so, I was happy to close the book on MJ, until I got a glimpse of this farcical clip from the folks who put the FAIL in #CNNFAIL. Thanks to uber-Tweep TenGrain for this:

Really? You “tracked Bubbles down?” He’s in a cage in Florida. It ain’t exactly “Hungry Like the Wolf.” (On a side note, how much must it suck to be a chimp who doesn’t quite rate inclusion in the “Great Ape” category? You get stashed in the “Mediocre Primate Hovel and Bait Shop?”)

Earlier this week, CNN also tracked down a rabbi who was Jackson’s friend. Not Jackson’s Rabbi, for that might have actually been a story.

It can be said that since the dawn of days- when dogmatic theories about our motives here on

earth were in development, deities to wash the feet of were bore-or when man began to worship at their knees-the “idol” was created. We have chiseled out pedestals to place said idols on and bow down to. Kings, Pharaohs, Emperors, Presidents, and in modern culture, celebrities.Continue reading →

Ed Morrissey pointed me at the New York Times’ review of “The Stoning of Soraya M,” and I have to say, as predictable as it was, I’m still disappointed. This is exactly the kind of unimaginative, knee-jerk, cover your ass reaction that John Ziegler warned me about when he told me about the film. Let’s compare. From my original review:

The film has some superficial things in common with “The Passion of the Christ,” such as the same production company (MPower Films), star (Jim Caviezel), and a graphic crucifixion.

…The casting of Jim Caviezel as Freidoune Sahebjam, the Paris-based Iranian journalist whose 1994 best seller. “The Stoning of Soraya M.: A True Story,” recounted the incident, lends the movie a queasy connection to “The Passion of the Christ,” in which Mr. Caviezel played Jesus.

This is a stunning, awe-inspiring example of judging a book by its cover. What a shame.

As Ed Morrissey points out, the Times’ reviewer doesn’t get his basic facts right, clocking the stoning at 20 minutes:

First, the stoning sequence lasts about eight minutes, not 20. It starts at the 1:31:30 mark, it’s over by 1:40, and it’s intercut with at least one flashback sequence.

This is a big problem, because lots of people are now going to stay away from this movie to avoid a 20 minute torture scene that isn’t there. That’s a real shame. The fact is, this scene, while bloody, is nothing at all like Passion of the Christ’s crucifixion scene.

The reviewer goes on to write the rest of the review from the Cynic’s Handbook. Continue reading →

Update: The film has taken in $117,000 from 27 screens, for a good $4,333 per-screen average, according to studio estimates. This is a film that deserves to be seen, and hopefully, it will see its numbers increase in future weeks, as word-of-mouth spreads and the film is shown in more theaters.

Several weeks ago, when my friend, John Ziegler, asked me to review the film “The Stoning of Soraya M,” he did so specifically because I’m a liberal, but also someone whom he trusts to be fair. Or at least fairer. As he described the film to me, I didn’t really get why anyone would be concerned about liberal reaction to the movie. He explained.Continue reading →

Several weeks ago, when my friend, John Ziegler, asked me to review the film “The Stoning of Soraya M,” he did so specifically because I’m a liberal, but also someone whom he trusts to be fair. Or at least fairer. As he described the film to me, I didn’t really get why anyone would be concerned about liberal reaction to the movie. He explained.

The film has some superficial things in common with “The Passion of the Christ,” such as the same production company (MPower Films), star (Jim Caviezel), and a graphic crucifixion. This was also prior to the Iranian election, so that made a difference, too. Now. the film carries extra resonance, as the death of young Neda echoes through it.

I went into the film, then, knowing what I wasn’t supposed to like about it. I can say, without qualification, that John need not have worried. Continue reading →